NACA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS

TM

427

NATIONAL ADVJSORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

No. 427

SEAPLANE FLOATS AND HULLS By H. Herrmann PA.RT I 1

From "Berichte und Abhandlungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gese 1 1 sc haft f u r Luftfahr t" December, 1926

Washington September, 1927

NATIONAL TECHNI CA L INFORMATION SERVICE

US. D E P A R l M E N l OF COMMERCE

REPRODUCED BY

SPRINGFIELD. VA. 22161

SEAPLANE FLOATS AND XULLS. *

By H. Herrmann.
..

PART 11.

For the s s k e of coKparison, speeds mid water r e s i s t a m e

a r e uniformly reduced t o a total meight of 1 9 0 9 kg (3205 L b . ) .

The f o l l o w i n y results** w e r e obtained b y a comparison""" of . t h e
, .

F-boa.ts (designed at Felixstowe) w i t h t h e cmilpetirrg sFapla.ne Phoenix ltCork" o r t r P . 5 1 tof t h e English E l e c t r i c Comp
Type
.

Engine

-7 , 3 5 0 lb. I?. E00

Nap i e r-L ion

2 , m I lb. 12,508 . "

'iVe i ght,

Weight, lo&ed Useful l o a d Horsepower Speed a t 2,000 f t < Climb t o 2,000 11 If 6,500 I t 11 10,000 !I S e r v i c e c e iling -

, 1idit

4,500 'I 300 109.4 mi./hr. 3 min.20 sec. 1 4 min. 25 '! ---13,om f t .

* ** ***

From "Bcrichte pnd Ab:ba.ndlungen 3er' ~ ~ ~ i s s e n s c ~ ~ f t lGeichen

s e l l s c h a f t f u r L u f t f a b r t , ' I Ee:3eg:ber, S928, pp. 3.26-152. Taken from " F l i g h t , " Xarch 13, 1925. Baker, G- S. Experiaents a i t b Xodels of Seaplana Floats. and. - B r i t i s h Advisory Committee f o r AeronauG a r y , E;. M. t i c s Reports and ?ieiiora,nda Eo. 483, December, 1913. Hope, Linton - Flying Boat 11s. "The Aeronautical Jour. nal," August, 1920.

****

1, O w i n .._ g t o t h e i r large bottoms, the F-boats

(Fig. 33)

produced 12% lower r e s i s t a n c e and less spra'y than

the F-boa,ts (Fig. 341, but lea.?& n o r e e a s i l y .

2.

The f i r s t s t e p of t h e I?-boat was then s h i f t e d 0.12 m

( 2 . 3 6 f t . ) tovarc! the f r o n t and t h e second s t e p vcas

s h i f t e d bac1ma.rd, thus increasing the vater - r e s i s t ance b y E?$, b u t irnr,roviiig the longitud i n d stabi.1i t y on the vat es.

f o r reducing t h e i n p a c t , r e s u l t e d i n a n increase of

r e s i s t a n c e and upray, owinj-3: t o the rettcction of the

cf'f ect i v e p o r t i o n of t b e Sottorn.
5.

Loweri-nq t h e s t e p toward t h e i n n e r p a r t of the V-bottom,

as shorn i n F i z . 3E, produced tz d e f i c i e n t scpara-

s i sta-nce.
6.

I n 2-11 cases, l e a p i n g could bt: a.voiclec? by small n o s e

heavy o r tail-heavy moments.

l y f r e e from o b j e c t i o n , o t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s and expense involved i n i t s p r a c t i c a l tion. The r e s i s t a n c e i s a l r e a d y t o o high anti decreases t o o l i t The s m d 1 p l a n i n g an-

t l e beyond t h e c r i t i c a l speed (Fig. 39).

g l e and t h e high water rfloments, vhich cannot be c o n t r o l l e d by s t a n d a r d h o r i z o n t a l t a i l p l a a e s , a r e il? t h i s case d e c i s i v e , The shape of t h e P.5 i s s u b j e c t t o numerous changes,** d i f f e r e n t ways of i n c r e a s i n g i t s width were t e s t e d (Fig. 40). The r e s u l t i s r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g owing t o t h e s l i g h t influence e x e r t e d by d i f f e r e n t l o a d s on h u l l s o f t h e same s i z e . Every inMeasurements Two

n increased r e s i s t a n c e . c r e a s e of width r e s u l t s i n a
(Fig, 42).

~16th d i f f e r e n t angles of t h e PorTnJard p o r t i o n are o f g r e a t e r value According t o Fig. 44, t h e l o a d inposed on a h u l l can

be augmented without i n c r e a s i n g t h e formation o f spray, by raisi n g t h e bow and extending t h e overhang,

However, t h e v a t e r reThese c o n d i t i o n s , refer t o a t o t a l

ce i n c r e a s e s when t h e bow i s r a i s e d .

i n which

e resistawes

3J,A,C.A.

Technical X@xorandumNb. 42_7 size of the

Based on t h e s e t e s t s t a o new bow shapes were inv ( F i g , 43). Their mater r e s i s t a n c e i s a l s o shorn i n F

t h e model at t h e s t e p and rneasuring t h e r e s i s t a n c e of t h e f r o n t and Tear p a r t s s e p a r a t e l y ( 3 i g . 45),

part w a s negligible,

The r e s i s t a n c e of t h e r e a r

The e f f e c t o f reducing t h e width o f t h e The r e s u l t (Figs. 51-53)

h u l l * w a s a l s o considered (Pig. 50).

was most f l a t t e r i n g f o r Linton ilope, t h e pioneer designer of

shapes, sFrho owing t o h i s experience i n t h e mot o r boat l i n e ,
had z n t i c i p a t e d that e i t h e r reducicg o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e a i d t h of

t h e h u l l mould r e s u l t i n 2n i n c r e a s e of t h e r e s i s t a n c e .
Very l o w water r e s i s t a n c e s mere obtained' during t e s t s w i t h t h r e e h u l l s of high displacement at normal tzke-off owing t o t h e f a c t that t h e take-off n i t h t h e s i z e of t h e hulls. speed**

speed w a s l o w mhen compared

This f a c t i s c l e a r l y shorn by Fig,

49, a l l t h e data being reduced t o a displacement of 1000 kg

(2205 lb.),

Compare l e n g t h o f h u l l , c r i t i c a l speed and water

N : A* C. A. T e c h i c a l %emorandm No. 427

The a i r r e s i s t a n c e of twin-floats does n o t c o n s i

exceed t h a t of an older normal landin

a r ttype.

In

connection, measurements were made by P r a n d t l .

Inves

on air res9stance of h u l l s with open cockpits and r i n g mounts

mere rxade ty t h e English.
It i s wfon~r;t o b e l i e v e
higher resistance.
see
a

e P 6 5 tvithout s t e p has n
peed
WAS

The c l i

24 m/s ( 7 8 . 7 f t . /

The measurements a r

r$ acctzrate and c h i e f l y made

tl, kn e r , t i r e l y smooth stream0

f o r coflparison.

According

l i n e 3ody has a, c o e f f i c i e n t

vthich i s less t h a n ha1.P

# .'

i t s I?orrnal value.

I n general, twin:

aplaq";

o r small f l y i n g b o a t s a&' a,erodynamically infersimilar.

Oii t h e

i o r t o airplanes, i f thei; c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 6 o t h e r hand,

3

twin-enqined f l y i

.inRest cases, aero-

dynamicslPp superic?.r 50'a twin-,engiiied a i m l a n e of the same

-. .

___-- Air Resistances of Flying-8oa.t 8 u ? l s . 1 I -

.... ..
t

34

0.1.170
.

34

0.1438

H,4 T i t a n i a

29

0.1048
0.10'74 0 . 1 2 1 3 0
,

N. 4 Atal.anta
F. 3

31

33

N.A. - *

Te
t

ndum No. 427

ifferent C

t ion
e given l e s s
GO

I n l i t e r a t u r e , .noma1 desigm than abnormal types.

I n pr

i c e , figures a v a i l a b l e f o r
es

seaplanes are usually m o n

shcxild' slmrays b e a r i n Find

ers of abnomal

s eaplrzzres

t t h e r e i s no use l o king or new

shapes,' unless they pr"ocure cbg6iderable advantage o r permit

avoiding expensive p a t e n t s . .

iiy o t h e r case shzpes 2nd s t m c -

rts, which have pro7m

a t seaplanes

i s f a c t o . r y , should b e r e t a i n e d . e t r i c t o n s (11.~0 t o 22000

113.)

t o t a l weight, and f l y j i g b o a t s of 0.5 La 16 t o n s (1100 to

35270 lb.) have been b ilt.

Apart from seavorthiness, the hul-1

02

o r f l o a t problem i s z. q u e s t i o n depending e n t i r e l y
f o r vhich t h e seaplane i s d e s i p e d .
/

t h e pu-rpose
30%

If seaworthiness i s

re-

q u i r e d , t h e twin-floa't seaplane i s s u p e r i o r t o t h e f l g h q boat

f o r t o t a l weights b c ~ o w2 o r 3 t o m (4409
GO

EEIO 1 5 . ) .. . ~ b o v e

t h i s l i m i t ' t h e problm 3as been sol-ved i n f a v o r of t h e f l y i n g

boat.

F o r m n l l seaplanes the advantage may l i e

03

eith.er s i d e

and sometimes both s o l u t i o n s are of aequal-a3lue.

twin-float saa?lane i s not nuch e l s e than an a i r p l

purposes.
t
man

Owing t o t h e high t r a n s v e r s e

nes r e q u i r e larger v
on t h e wat the

N. A. C,A, Technical &rr,orandum

wind, tlie f i n should be s m p e l l e r shoul

be 0.5 m (1 f t , ) above t

The d i s t a n c e between t h e f l o a t s amou.nts t o 1/5 of -t

systematic , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of s t a b i l i t y on t h e water a r e as ye available.

data.

Work i s at p r e s e n t e n t i r e l y based on experimental

The f l o a t s a r e divided i n t o 5 t o 7 water-tight compat-

inents t o avoid sinking, i n cage one of them should spring a l e a k .

Thus far no i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 'have been zade on t h e s t a b i l i t y of a

l e a k y twin-float seaplme. Comparison of D i f f e r e n t F l o a t Types ar a f t . Seaplane r a i s e d durke-off by r e s u l t i n g nose- F T ~ - Ler rLioi-aent, WLen taking

a larger angle t h m 1.vith long f l o a t s . Thus advantages f o r taking o f f and a1ightia.g on rough wa,ter.

r,).

~ong flotatio

N . A , 2.8.

Technical Nemorpbndu

c
e l e v a t o r c o n t r o l . A pe seaway 4 at 85 km/h 7 5 2 oving t o lo^ impact on 1 floating - on rough water, . 010 landing gear suff i c i e n S h w e well s u i t e d f o r strGc-tion, Lighter t h a n flat-bottoml Fig. 54c type. Low a a t e r r e s i s t m c e due t o hollow 1i n e s . Long cen1'-bottom. Gut away a f t t o o b t a i n l z r g e r margin when p u l l i n g on eletral float w i t h wingv a t o r c o n t r o l . Advantages when t i p f l o a t s . compared with twin-floats: l i g h t e r , Axe 1 'i c an l o n e r cir r e s i s t a n c e , s t r o n g e r , training ainipler and l i g h t e r landing gear. The compulsory wing-tip f l o a t s do s e aplane .tle c o r~i ing avray w i t h t h e reduction of weight 0 0 0 more used. arid a i r r e s i s t a n c e . There only remains t h e advantage o f a b e t t e r Fig. 54d lamling gear. Maneuverability on rough water not s o Sood as w i t h tlvin-flonts. Seaplane may break down i f a wing-tip f l o a t coraes o f f . _ The qbove comparison shovw t h e str0r.g m d ::re& p o i n t s o f Long twinfloats. V-bottom. S t aadard Araer i c ai2 type, 3ecoming rnore useC.

d i f f e r e n t f l o z t constructions.

It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note that

t h e Americm marine f l o a t has a 32 t o 35% lower r e s i s t a n c e t b w

t h e German standard f l o a t .

The Gex:-;l,m

fXo2-t has a born wave,

whereas t h e American f l o a t r u n s i n a hollow wave. produced by .yodels of t h e V-bottom type.

ill ZUZ

Less spray i s

F l o a t s with a f l a t

sii?oo l y .

V-bot

m f l o a t s rock s l i g h t l y .

whole, f l o a t s w i t h a V-Sottomvl a r e m-ch superior t o f l o a t s with-

out

ti

V-bottom.

The d i s t m c e b e t m e n t h e f l o a t s e x e r t s a . small on t n e r e s i s t a n
b t h e impact and t h e

ses

4.

The moment of t o r s i o n around t h e long e r a 3 i a p a c t drawing t h e f l o a t s asunder o r s s i n g them t o g e t h e r .

6.

Combination of d i f f e r e n t f o r c e s as, f o r ex impact on t h e r i g h t f l o a t and below t h e l e f t f l o a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o a moment of t around t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l axis. T h i s case when a l i g h t i n g at an angle o f 45' t o t h e

Under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s , t h e s t r e s s e s may be high

take-off

speed

inuS2,

be taken i n t o consideration.

Hence, when

t h e rniniilzum speed i n t h e air i s increased from 70 t o 100 k m / h (43.5 t o 62 mi../hr.) t h e speed r e l a t i v e t o t h e water changes The squares grow from

f r o m 35 t o 65 km/h (21.7 t o 40.4 mi./hr.),

4900/10000 = 2.04, t o 1220/4250 = 13.5.

* Q f course t h i s calcula-

t i o n i s confined t o t h e impact o f high waves when a l i g h t i n g on rough water, Lower f o r c e s a r e c r e a t e d , i f t h e landing gear i s e l a s t i c , s i n c e , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e impact does not f u l l y develop. d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r a i n e t h e proper degrce o f e l a s t i c i t y .

It i s
Cables

2.

Seavorthinegs

k f l y i n g boat of such s i z e i s seaworthy, provided. t h e a l i g h t -

i n g speed is s u f f i c i e n t l y low.

Very high s t r e s s e s a r e c r e c t e d seaplane vhen f l o a t i n g

between the f l o a t s of a l a r g e t a i n - f l o a t

on a rough sea,
30 A i r R e s i s t m c e

Except T o r t h e step, t h e shape of a f1yir;g bo& n m i c a l l y quite satisfactory. inclading wing-tip

i s aerody-

Consequently, a flying-boat h u l l

f l o a t s , has l e s s a i r r e s i s t a n c e tlim a corre-

sponding f u s e l a g e with floats and laxding gear.

4.

Water Resistance

hull aid V-bottom f l o a t s a r e o f t

dynaini c al prop e r t ie s

.
Tne determina-

Longitudinal s t a b i l i t y on t h e mater r e s u l t s from t h e long bow which i s d s o r e q u i r e d f o r o t h e r reasons.

t i o n of t h e s t a b i l i t y of leaky h u l l s cari be based upon i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e s t a b i l i t y of leaky s h i p s , The lower wings should

be 1.5 in (4.92 f t . ) above t h e water and t h e cockpi-ts at l e a s t

0.9

m (2.95 f t . ) .
Transverse s t a b i l i t y c a l l s o r s p e c i a l measures u n l e s

chamber could be a x r a g e d above it i n t h e wing, f o r exampl

H. B, Helmbold: -

I should l i k e t o make some comments on

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r e s u l t s of float-model t e s t s t o f u l l sized floats.

The f l o w s t r e s s e s c r e a t e d m e s u b j e c t t o t h e in-

f l u e n c e of g r a v i t y and t e n a c i t y ,

Hence, according t o t h e mechan-

Captain Boykow ( r e t i r e d naval captain3:

The l e c t u r e

that a s i n g l e - f l o a t seaplaae o r o f t h e i r wing-tip f l o a t s c o m s

geratcd,

II,

f l y i n g boat breaks dow

This m y be a l i t t l e ex%-

off,

The danger r e s u l t i n g from a f l o a t coning o f f must be

2.

somewhat sinilar t o t h a t encountered by

t r a i n runniag past t

t h e surface o f t h e water) during t a n k t e s t s .

T h i s angle can

e x e r t a considerable influence on t h e resistance.

To g e t a com-

p l e t e i d e a of r e s i s t a m e conditions, t h e r e s i s t a n c e curves should be measured over a speed range f o r d i f f e r e n t l o a d s and d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s of t r i m , a much higher number of observat i o n s being thus required.
A s e t of r e s i s t a n c e curves i s then

obtained, from which t h e m o s t favorable take-off

conditions f o r

a given h u l l shape can be determined, provided t h e change of

aerodynamical l i f t r e s u l t i n g from a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n of t r i m
i s taken i n t o consideration,
I do not agree with t h e l e c

t o the e f f e c t o f t h e l i f t on t h e take-off, which he co

be n e g l i g i b l e , Inen speaking of h u l l shapes, t h e l e c t u r e r

P = G' (1 where

+ G -b\

gl

G = t o t d weight,
G' = t h e p a r t o f t h e t o t a l weight not supported by t h e wings,

g = a c c e l e r a t i o n due t o g r a v i t y , i = radius of g y r a t i o n .

A s soon as

becomes

< G*

there is

Fig. 71

The highest l o c a l s t r e s s exerted by a wave i s reduced w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e of t h e c o g , f r o m t h e point of t h e wave i m p a c t and w i t h decreasing radius o f gyration.

It i s t h e r e f o r e q u i t e p o s s i b l e that no higher s t r e s s e s are

imposed on a h u l l w i t h a l o n g f r o n t p o r t i o n than on a s h o r t Vbottom h u l l . S h o r t e r h u l l and higher moment of i n e r t i a of t h e

l a n e c a l l or sharper l i n e s of t h e f r o n t p a r t t o withstaild t h e impacts of t h e waves. tom over t h e whole l e n g t h of

ce t o new designs.

l y i n g boats it should not be Torgotten t h a t , s o far as I

A conparison of t h e l l f a c t o r ~(power ~ loading x

, -

D r . R o l a n d Eisenlohr:

I n r e p l y t o Dr. Madelung's arguments,

seaplane i n

I beg t o s t a t e t h a t we already had a s i n g l e - f l o a t

Germmy i n 1911, namely, t h e 135 HP. Xober-Friedrichshafen b i -

plane.

A-f; t h a t time t h i s biplane competed with an A l b a t r o s

twin-float b i p l a n e p i l o t e d by H i r t h i n t h e 50 kg (110.2 l b . ) c u i t which seconds.

'G~EI-S

cir-

won by H i r t h w i t h only a s l i g h t x a r g i n of 1 or 2

T h i s good performance o f t h e l a r g e biplzne a g a i n s t

t h e s n a l l and rapid monopl'me was no doubt due t o t h e r a p i d take-

off mid ?.lighting as well as t o t h e l o w air r e s i s t a n c e of t h e

centr'al f l o a t .

of t h e c.g.

r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s t e p i s evidenced by t h e t e x t accompanying Figs. 17-25. The forthcoming Hamburg a r t i c l e w i l l contaim f u r -

t h e r information,
Mr.

Diemer's c a l c u l a t i o n proves w i t h p a r t i c u l a r clearne

t h a t t h e s t e p r e c e i v e s t h e h i g h e s t impacts and should t h e r e f o r be o f V-bottom shape,

t y of a long bow.

I have r e p e a t e d l y emphasized the necess

The ltfactortl i s o f t e n used i n Germany f o r t h e determinat i o n of a i r p l a n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , l i t t l e information,

. .

T h i s " f a c t o r " a f f o r d s but

Performances, maneuverability, attendance,

number of cu2rent r e p a i r s , p r i c e and rnmy other important a r e never t o be found i n books o r i n p u b l i c a t i o n s i s s u e d by

Taxying e p e e d , ~ k , s/h Fig.37 wesi stltnoe oomparieon of the P5 and the P3.

D i splacs mnt, 8400 kg

_ _ _ _- -- Model 579
Take-of f
E5 km/h

Model 570

Uodel 573

Model 574

Fig.38 Linea of 4 h u l l e with longitudinal atap,but without transverse step

N.A.C.R.

Tech33

Reference

line

Xodel 41611

&zjo---Fig.42

Fror-i r i b 6 t o s t e r n saac as codel 3896: F r o 2 r i b 6 t o bog, r i b s 3890 (cxcspt rib 1) raised t o nen h e 1 l i n e .

Lines 09 t h e P 5 nit11 d i f f e r e n t positions of the froint p o r t i o n .

!-i
I

0 0 0 0

lf3mu3m

r l

1 0 0

Cd$.Qoao%l

10

15

20 25 30 Taxying speed, v, Im/h

35

Fig.44

Fater r e s i s t a n c e of t h e nodels o f figures 42 an3 43 nhen t 3 e forcation of spr.g,!y i s ' s t r i c t l y i d e a t i ea1

k = 24100 1 = 22650

f = 30800 j = 29000

Fig.45

Resultant f o r c e s acting on a hull.

Length o f model 1.22 rn

Displacement 454CO kg

Fig.48

Lines of a comparative model of Fig.46,with curved contoum.

3q
N.A.C.A.

Technical Edernoran&rn No .427

Fige *49,51

.%

F i g . 49

Fig.55

Landing gear of t h e Friedrichshafen F.49.3, Xany struts.

Fig.56

ear of t h e Udct U.13. 1r3a:j-eriin. t r o n g h o r i z o n t a l comecting tub

N..4 .C .A

Technical Xerruorandun No. 427

Fig, 68

Liore u o/iiieie/: L. e.0 HIJ.

67 / t60 kmlh I800/27SOkg

CA.N.S. 33.

'

Superrnorhe,, Amphibiun *

. _ _ . _

Blanchard.

-/- kg

2-260HP 90/ 775 km/b 2300 / 3760hg

.
~

. .

. ..

. - ..

Rohrbuch. Rdh'

,.----.,

..

85 I I70km/h 5200/ BZOOkg

..

4 8 ZOOUP

U.S. Navy. P N. Z
2*36DHP ff5/ZZOkmlh 3700i5700kg

Cox Klemin. C . H -L
4080/8?60 kg

B e h ger.
Borel(S..C.JM)

89 / t96 km/h ??BO /?890g.

I1

~ i g . 6 8 Scale coni- $ parison of differ- E ant f l y i n g bonts .

P i

. S.C.M.P.

Dornier,Wal.'

89 / I88hm/h